Questioning God's Chosen Communication

[POI]

(1) Why would an omniscient God reveal to ancient societies the questions that modern scientific communities would be interested in? (2) Why would God care more about making scientific knowledge available in these texts versus addressing how He wanted humans to live?

For debate: Does the provided video below answer the above two questions sufficiently? If not, why not? If so, then I guess God is inept?

[TRANSPONDER]

Aside from common sense alone?

Assuming all slavery/servanthood is the same is not common sense.

You use this principle when it benefits your desired conclusion, but ignore it when it doesn’t (such as your claims that the Bible allows whipping your slave in the back...why don't you conclude there that if the Bible doesn't specifically mention whipping a slave in the back, it's not saying anything about that?). You should reject this principle entirely because it is an irrational argument from silence.

Oh, you mean like you assuming these folks were going from harsher situations to less harsh ones? Lifetime chattel slavery is 'better', while not actually knowing what their prior situation really was?

I don’t just assume it. We know there was ancient slavery that was generally pretty harsh. The regulations on slavery in the Bible for the Israelites are less harsh.

But seriously, it does not take a rocket scientist to see what was going on.

I’m not asking for rocket science, but good philosophy.

And the best rebuttal you can muster is to indicate that God wanted continued worship and did not want to infringe upon their stubbornness.

That’s not what I said at all. God wanted humanity to move closer towards what they were made to be, but needed to use a method that would produce some change instead of just being outright rejected, leaving the poor in a worse state.

Because this verse specifically singles out which group NOT to treat ruthlessly. Which implies the chattel slaves can be. I would reckon you and I would consider 'beatings', as long as they do not die, as "ruthlessly", right? The Bible is saying the Israelites are off limits for that type of treatment. Don't "beat" them. Such behavior is reserved for the chattel slaves.

It implies slaves/servants from other nations can be treated differently, but that doesn’t mean anything goes. The beatings (which aren’t just about slaves/servants from other nations) aren’t “as long as they don’t die” to try to get away with as much as one can, but about discipline not going too far, including stuff like knocking a tooth out, which doesn’t mean whipping them on the back is fine because the scriptures are not meant to be read hyper-literally.

You forgot to mention, or left out the part, where they are the master's lifetime PROPERTY. Maybe not to the same level of property as a stick or a shovel, but probably more on the level of property in between that of women and cattle, again, based upon context and analysis.

Yes, they are called property in the sense of them having ultimate control over their freedom. They don’t have to keep them for their lifetime, but can. As context shows, many people (including Israelites) desired to stay in this kind of servanthood. Seems like many felt it better than the alternative of being on their own because that would mean death for them.

I may agree that the OT regulations were intended to be just or at least just to please God, but it was still chattel slavery - for non Hebrews. I also read it to make the conditions apply only to Hebrew slave where they have to be treated kindly enough so they aren't beaten to death on the spot and let go after 7 years but you keep his wife and kids, and if he wants to stay with them, he isproperty for life.

And - yes - there are no rules for foreign slaves, even apart from the option to release them, they are not obliged to. You have to admit that was a pretty weak attempt at an excuse. Even weaker than the one that God wanted to move morality along, but couldn't do it in one go'. It's just an excuse,. he ended human sacrifice, eating bacon and prawns (which no matter what Franklin said about beer, proves that if YHWH was real he doesn't love his people).

The excuses amountnto the same thing (short of fingers in ears denial) yes, this is lifetime chattel slavery but bit's ok as they Israelites gcould treat the (foreign) slave nicely, though the was no Biblical directive they should do so. That was only for hebrew slaves, because Hebrews wrote the book and didn't care how foreign slaves were treated.

Even if your excuse stacked up, all it is is yet again taking the way the world is (we eventually came to abolish slavery) and claim that a god is behind it. There is no reason to assume that unless one wants to believe it.

[POI]

Assuming all slavery/servanthood is the same is not common sense.

I don't assume all servants/slaves are the same. I've stated, very clearly, I'm referencing the condoned foreign and/or female chattel slaves, not the male Hebrew servants.

We know there was ancient slavery that was generally pretty harsh. The regulations on slavery in the Bible for the Israelites are less harsh.

Only a fool would kill or maim their labor. The laws from the Bible propelled them no closer to ending slavery. This is because God was okay with slavery and wanted to give the correct instruction on how to do it, so slave masters could squeeze every last drop of work out of their chattel slaves. Whip them into shape. The NT solidified this position by telling slaves to work their hardest.

I’m not asking for rocket science, but good philosophy.

Great, and we agree a chattel slave is cheap labor. We likely also agree that a chattel slave's sole purpose is to work. We likely also agree that a dead slave helps the master none. We likely also agree that the perceived creator of the universe telling the slave to work as hard as they can is a way to ensure the slave works harder, to earn God's favor.

God set the record straight, by telling masters not to kill their slaves, because such acts are foolish.

God wanted humanity to move closer towards what they were made to be, but needed to use a method that would produce some change instead of just being outright rejected, leaving the poor in a worse state.

The only change God provided was to tell slave masters not to kill their labor, which is already common sense.

It implies slaves/servants from other nations can be treated differently, but that doesn’t mean anything goes.

I know. Don't kill them because then these slave masters would have to spend more money to replace them. God was guiding these slave masters correctly.

The beatings (which aren’t just about slaves/servants from other nations) aren’t “as long as they don’t die” to try to get away with as much as one can, but about discipline not going too far, including stuff like knocking a tooth out, which doesn’t mean whipping them on the back is fine because the scriptures are not meant to be read hyper-literally.

As stated prior, whippings to the back was likely the gold standard long before slavery existed in the states. The slave had two choices. 1) Work long and hard, or 2) get whipped, and then work long and hard anyways.

Yes, they are called property in the sense of them having ultimate control over their freedom. They don’t have to keep them for their lifetime, but can. As context shows, many people (including Israelites) desired to stay in this kind of servanthood. Seems like many felt it better than the alternative of being on their own because that would mean death for them.

I doubt many opted to become property for life, where beatings were treated with instructed immunity. But hey, what do I know.

[Mae von H]

Sometimes I look at the people who lost jobs and homes and live in cars until they live on the street today begging for food and wonder if someone offered them a job that had no pay but housing, decent food, clothes, medical treatment and all for domestic help, if they would prefer begging.

The institute of slavery was sometimes like indentured servanthood which some willingly took on in order to come to the new world. They were not paid but served some years in payment of their passage. Does not mean they were beaten or mistreated. Being beaten or mistreated depends not upon the employment agreement but upon the character of those in power, same as today. Many can tell of mistreatment at the hands of employers who technically cannot keep an employee they mistreat from leaving but practically this is little more than slavery as the employee has no other option if they want to keep a roof over their head. In the Bible, the option to offer your services in exchange for food, housing, clothes and medical care was there to prevent dying of starvation and being homeless. In the choice between living on the street and begging for food, the option to be useful was attractive in comparison. Some who never faced that possibility probably cannot understand the reason why servanthood is preferable to beggar. Some beggars put up signs, "will work for food." Is that slavery since no money is exchanged? Would they do so everyday and stay if housing were offered as well?

[TRANSPONDER]

Sometimes I look at the people who lost jobs and homes and live in cars until they live on the street today begging for food and wonder if someone offered them a job that had no pay but housing, decent food, clothes, medical treatment and all for domestic help, if they would prefer begging.

The institute of slavery was sometimes like indentured servanthood which some willingly took on in order to come to the new world. They were not paid but served some years in payment of their passage. Does not mean they were beaten or mistreated. Being beaten or mistreated depends not upon the employment agreement but upon the character of those in power, same as today. Many can tell of mistreatment at the hands of employers who technically cannot keep an employee they mistreat from leaving but practically this is little more than slavery as the employee has no other option if they want to keep a roof over their head. In the Bible, the option to offer your services in exchange for food, housing, clothes and medical care was there to prevent dying of starvation and being homeless. In the choice between living on the street and begging for food, the option to be useful was attractive in comparison. Some who never faced that possibility probably cannot understand the reason why servanthood is preferable to beggar. Some beggars put up signs, "will work for food." Is that slavery since no money is exchanged? Would they do so everyday and stay if housing were offered as well?

No,no, no. The correction has been made many times - that was for Hebrew slaves only,.It did not apply to foreign slaves.

[Mae von H]

Sometimes I look at the people who lost jobs and homes and live in cars until they live on the street today begging for food and wonder if someone offered them a job that had no pay but housing, decent food, clothes, medical treatment and all for domestic help, if they would prefer begging.

The institute of slavery was sometimes like indentured servanthood which some willingly took on in order to come to the new world. They were not paid but served some years in payment of their passage. Does not mean they were beaten or mistreated. Being beaten or mistreated depends not upon the employment agreement but upon the character of those in power, same as today. Many can tell of mistreatment at the hands of employers who technically cannot keep an employee they mistreat from leaving but practically this is little more than slavery as the employee has no other option if they want to keep a roof over their head. In the Bible, the option to offer your services in exchange for food, housing, clothes and medical care was there to prevent dying of starvation and being homeless. In the choice between living on the street and begging for food, the option to be useful was attractive in comparison. Some who never faced that possibility probably cannot understand the reason why servanthood is preferable to beggar. Some beggars put up signs, "will work for food." Is that slavery since no money is exchanged? Would they do so everyday and stay if housing were offered as well?

No,no, no. The correction has been made many times - that was for Hebrew slaves only,.It did not apply to foreign slaves.

What? I was speaking of today. Besides, anyone could apply to be a servant/slave instead of living on the street in Israel. There was not a separate law if one volunteered to work for housing and food. The inheritance law for Israelites was to preserve the inheritance. It didn’t mean gentiles who preferred house work with benefits to starving were property.

[TRANSPONDER]

Sometimes I look at the people who lost jobs and homes and live in cars until they live on the street today begging for food and wonder if someone offered them a job that had no pay but housing, decent food, clothes, medical treatment and all for domestic help, if they would prefer begging.

The institute of slavery was sometimes like indentured servanthood which some willingly took on in order to come to the new world. They were not paid but served some years in payment of their passage. Does not mean they were beaten or mistreated. Being beaten or mistreated depends not upon the employment agreement but upon the character of those in power, same as today. Many can tell of mistreatment at the hands of employers who technically cannot keep an employee they mistreat from leaving but practically this is little more than slavery as the employee has no other option if they want to keep a roof over their head. In the Bible, the option to offer your services in exchange for food, housing, clothes and medical care was there to prevent dying of starvation and being homeless. In the choice between living on the street and begging for food, the option to be useful was attractive in comparison. Some who never faced that possibility probably cannot understand the reason why servanthood is preferable to beggar. Some beggars put up signs, "will work for food." Is that slavery since no money is exchanged? Would they do so everyday and stay if housing were offered as well?

No,no, no. The correction has been made many times - that was for Hebrew slaves only,.It did not apply to foreign slaves.

What? I was speaking of today. Besides, anyone could apply to be a servant/slave instead of living on the street in Israel. There was not a separate law if one volunteered to work for housing and food. The inheritance law for Israelites was to preserve the inheritance. It didn’t mean gentiles who preferred house work with benefits to starving were property.

What? Slavery is illegal today, as well as immoral,(though I have sometimes seen a few people whose lives should be legally run by the legal bodies rather than their continual financial shambles. But the difference between people owned as property for life whether or not withl rights or even payment is wrong, and for foreigners, there appear no rights.

And, if you were talking of supposedly modern slavery unless as an analogy to biblical, what is the point? It would be like our pal discussing the engineering of cars and protesting he was not talking as an analogy of evolution.

Explain yourself.

[The Tanager]

I don't assume all servants/slaves are the same. I've stated, very clearly, I'm referencing the condoned foreign and/or female chattel slaves, not the male Hebrew servants.

That is what I was talking about. Assuming the foreign slaves in Israel was the same thing as colonial slavery is not common sense.

Great, and we agree a chattel slave is cheap labor. We likely also agree that a chattel slave's sole purpose is to work. We likely also agree that a dead slave helps the master none. We likely also agree that the perceived creator of the universe telling the slave to work as hard as they can is a way to ensure the slave works harder, to earn God's favor.

God set the record straight, by telling masters not to kill their slaves, because such acts are foolish.

I assume it was probably cheaper labor, yes. I don’t agree that the sole purpose of foreign slaves in Israel was to work. The Bible is all about treating people as being made in the image of God and caring for the least around you. I don’t agree God telling slaves to work well is a way to ensure the slave works harder, but a way to help them treat others as being made in God’s image. God doesn’t tell masters to not kill their slaves because acts are foolish, but because those acts are unloving. If it was all about what was foolish or not, slaves wouldn’t be released for knocking a tooth out.

I know. Don't kill them because then these slave masters would have to spend more money to replace them. God was guiding these slave masters correctly.

More focus on minority psychologizing as though it’s the only possibility or clear motivation.

As stated prior, whippings to the back was likely the gold standard long before slavery existed in the states. The slave had two choices. 1) Work long and hard, or 2) get whipped, and then work long and hard anyways.

Where in the Bible does it teach to do this?

[POI]

Assuming the foreign slaves in Israel was the same thing as colonial slavery is not common sense.

I'm not saying they are the same. The Bible God was an innovator. Those pesky colonials killed a lot of their slaves. They were dumb because they had to buy new ones. It is dumb to destroy your money/property. Just feed them the Bible, by telling them which God is the real God, and then reading them this:

"22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving."

Both the Romans, prior, as well as the colonials, afterwards, lost their way. They should have stuck to the Bible's way, the correct way. Keep slaves, tell them God loves them for working harder, and beat the strays, who still get out of line. Such beatings are immune from punishment, as instructed in Exodus 21. The objective is to please your God. Earn brownie points for the almighty.

I assume it was probably cheaper labor, yes. I don’t agree that the sole purpose of foreign slaves in Israel was to work.

Well, that's too bad. Chattel slaves were chattel slaves. They were not free humans. They were instead the master's money/property, ala the Bible - (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25).

The Bible is all about treating people as being made in the image of God and caring for the least around you.

Again, differing rules, differing groups.

I don’t agree God telling slaves to work well is a way to ensure the slave works harder, but a way to help them treat others as being made in God’s image.

Then you would be wrong. This is exactly what the Bible is telling slaves, to work harder to please God. See the verses above.

More focus on minority psychologizing as though it’s the only possibility or clear motivation.

Which starting position is more logical?

-- God wants to turn folks away from slavery.
-- God is giving folks instructions for the best way to enforce slavery.

Hint, the correct answer looks to be in red, directly above.

Where in the Bible does it teach to do this?

What exactly do you think a slave master did with his property, or chattel slave, if the slave did not produce to his standard(s)?



***************************

Your position fails because the Bible believing colonials, much later, were not moving away from slavery, but instead more-so embracing even 'harsher' slavery. It wasn't until we abolished it, on our own, that slavery was no more.

[Mae von H]

Sometimes I look at the people who lost jobs and homes and live in cars until they live on the street today begging for food and wonder if someone offered them a job that had no pay but housing, decent food, clothes, medical treatment and all for domestic help, if they would prefer begging.

The institute of slavery was sometimes like indentured servanthood which some willingly took on in order to come to the new world. They were not paid but served some years in payment of their passage. Does not mean they were beaten or mistreated. Being beaten or mistreated depends not upon the employment agreement but upon the character of those in power, same as today. Many can tell of mistreatment at the hands of employers who technically cannot keep an employee they mistreat from leaving but practically this is little more than slavery as the employee has no other option if they want to keep a roof over their head. In the Bible, the option to offer your services in exchange for food, housing, clothes and medical care was there to prevent dying of starvation and being homeless. In the choice between living on the street and begging for food, the option to be useful was attractive in comparison. Some who never faced that possibility probably cannot understand the reason why servanthood is preferable to beggar. Some beggars put up signs, "will work for food." Is that slavery since no money is exchanged? Would they do so everyday and stay if housing were offered as well?

No,no, no. The correction has been made many times - that was for Hebrew slaves only,.It did not apply to foreign slaves.

What? I was speaking of today. Besides, anyone could apply to be a servant/slave instead of living on the street in Israel. There was not a separate law if one volunteered to work for housing and food. The inheritance law for Israelites was to preserve the inheritance. It didn’t mean gentiles who preferred house work with benefits to starving were property.

What? Slavery is illegal today, as well as immoral,(though I have sometimes seen a few people whose lives should be legally run by the legal bodies rather than their continual financial shambles. But the difference between people owned as property for life whether or not withl rights or even payment is wrong, and for foreigners, there appear no rights.

Untrue concerning ancient Israel. Under some conditions, the master must release the slave, Jew or gentile. But can you not imagine a man wanting to exchange hunger and homelessness for meaningful work, food and housing. You seem to think all masters were nasty men who beat their slaves (generally expensive) so they couldn’t work. That makes no sense.

And, if you were talking of supposedly modern slavery unless as an analogy to biblical, what is the point? It would be like our pal discussing the engineering of cars and protesting he was not talking as an analogy of evolution.

Explain yourself.

I feel very sorry for the growing homelessness in the world. Sometimes white collar highly educated men and women sleep in their cars, if lucky, or in tents. I wonder if a rich man offered them food, housing, clothes and medical care instead of money, would they be less satisfied or more? Some people really want to work and dislike hunger.

There’s a film where an upper class lady and son has a woman living with her who acts like a servant but really is called a friend. Her husband died and so they live in simple quarters. She can make enough from sewing to support them all but cannot pay her. The friend can leave anytime, but she stays as it is pleasant and meaningful work, companionship and all her needs are provided. Would modern people tell her to leave servanthood and forage out on the streets by herself? Is life better being free of work without pay than free of food, shelter and clothing?

Of course modern people would be aghast at such an idea. England had servants for many years and these were sometimes quite proud to be of a household sometimes generation after generation serving the same family. They were fed and housed and had meaningful work and companionship. It’s a foreign concept to us.


But I’ve heard many stories of poor Americans working three jobs and can barely pay rent and buy food. Sure, they’re not literal slaves, but they’ve no money for leisure or pleasure. They just work, sleep little and live on the edge of homelessness. Are they really free? Just some thoughts.

[Mae von H]

“If every command of the Old Testament were followed, it becomes impossible for masters to treat Israelite or foreign servant-slaves inhumanely:
Kidnapping people to be servant/slaves was punishable by death (Ex 21:16).
"You shall not oppress a resident alien" (Ex 23:9), "You shall also love the stranger" (Deut 10:19), "you shall love the alien as yourself" (Lev 19:34), and "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18).
If a servant is released, masters were required to send them away with generous supplies (Deut 15:13-14).
It was illegal to force escaped slaves to return to their masters (Deut 23:15-16).”

Much ignored laws that governed ancient Israel. Ignored by Bible detractors that is.